OPINION & EDITORIAL
Slippery slope fallacy no reason to ban gay marriage
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Robert S. Hunger:
- Sen. McCarthy not just another peace freak hallucination (December 14, 2005)
- Robertson goes off deep end again (January 15, 2006)
- Political freedom necessary in university classrooms (January 23, 2006)
- Debunking myth of Madison liberalism (September 1, 2005)
- Public financing of elections wrong (January 31, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Bishop errs in advice (October 11, 2006)
- Religion dominates gay marriage debate (December 14, 2005)
- Bush's October holiday (October 17, 2003)
- Vote "No" on marriage ban (November 6, 2006)
- Marriage: a cultural tradition (January 21, 2005)
by Robert S. Hunger
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
In their collective fervor to legislate their version of Judeo-Christian morality, state lawmakers have once again renewed efforts to define marriage in Wisconsin as between one man and one woman.
While one of the underlying themes of the 2004 presidential election, the marriage debate has lost prominence as President Bush no longer needs it as a divisive and convenient political tool. And if last year's election is any indicator, expect talking heads to sling more mud than the peace-freaks did at Woodstock.
The most common talking point among those opposed to homosexual marriage is that if we allow gays to marry there's nothing to stop us from allowing polygamy. The heart of this reasoning rests upon the assumption that polygamy is such an unacceptable practice the comparison will make individuals cringe at the thought of gay marriage. But should the government ban polygamy?
Before I continue, a few caveats are in order.
First, this slippery slope reasoning is absurd and I see no link between allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing multiple people to marry each other. If we apply this rationale to all walks of American life, one could make the argument that the government must legalize heroin if alcohol is legal, or that there is nothing preventing a communist dictatorship if the FDIC government insures banks via the FDIC.
Also, this truly is not a chauvinistic position; while polygamy is traditionally believed to be between one man and several women, it could just as easily be between one woman and several men. If Darryn Beckstrom, the editorial board chairman, were to propose to the entire board — Charles Parsons, Mikey Robinson, Mac VerStandig and me — she should have the right to do so.
While many (including myself) certainly view polygamy as ethically dubious, it is not the duty of the government to legislate morality. Morality is a highly relativistic idea; and if lawmakers choose to apply their morals to the nation, they are inevitably going to offend another's version of morality.
Much of the criticism of polygamy comes from Christians proclaiming polygamy is in some way, shape or form against God's will. However, Exodus 21:10 states, "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish," apparently showing that the Bible has no problems with a man taking more than one wife.
Of course, there are probably many verses in the Bible condemning polygamy and that are directly at odds with Exodus 21:10; the Bible tends to contradict itself. However, what this verse does show is that the Bible clearly is not dead-set against polygamy in every instance, so one cannot justifiably claim polygamy is undoubtedly spitting in the face of Christianity.
There certainly is a difference between allowing a judge or justice of the peace to marry multiple individuals and forcing a priest, rabbi or cleric to recognize or perform the marriage. If the state does indeed recognize polygamy, no religious institution should be forced to perform the marriages.
And yes, many can rightfully claim murder, rape and theft are all immoral. However, these actions have obvious direct and terrible consequences on the victim, but if more than two individuals willingly enter into a marriage none of the parties involved could truly be labeled the victim. Many say prostitution is a victimless crime, yet left unsanctioned it can lead to the "john" beating or killing the prostitute or one of the parties acquiring AIDS.
So whose life is negatively altered if one woman decides to marry more than one man? If those involved in a polygamist relationship love and respect each other, the answer is no one. Sure, individuals will undoubtedly be offended by the notion that one man can have more than one wife, but certain Americans are also offended by and have moral problems with the consumption of alcohol. Does that mean the government should capitulate to a present day version of the Anti-Saloon League and reinstitute prohibition? I'd certainly hope not.
Prohibition, by the way, is a perfect example of a number of Americans forcing their moral values on the rest of the public. I'm not a historian, so you'll have to tell me how prohibition turned out.
But in all seriousness, moral crusaders against polygamy truly should question whether they want the government to have the power to restrict individual freedom. This column was not meant to advocate polygamy as a practice, but rather explain why the government should not restrict it in a legal sense; what one man considers moral another considers filthy.
Robert S. Hunger (rhunger@badgerherald.com) is the editorial page content editor and is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
Anonymous (November 15, 2005 @ 3:14am):
marriage = 1 man + 1 woman
Jancis Andrews (November 15, 2005 @ 7:06am):
An interesting article, but with not enough research behind it. Polygamy is not about religion, or sexual mores. It's about the equality of women. What happens to the "wives" (in reality, concubines) and their offspring? Can the man support them all adequately? What about the education costs, dental costs, health costs, clothing costs, etc. of the children?What happens when the man dies and he has maybe 50 people needing to share his estate? Winston Blackmore, for example, Canada's arch-polygamist in spite of Section 293 CC which proscribes the practice, has around 30 concubines and in January was presented with his 102nd child. Who do you think supports this enormous group of people who are the result of Winston's sex-fest? Winston? Think again. Think welfare. Think taxpayer. Moreover, you did not mention the thousands of women in third-world countries who are petitioning their governments to end polygamy because it makes their lives and the lives of their children a misery. As well, you did not mention the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Equality in Marriage and Family Relations). Section 14 and 39 state that polygamy contravenes women's equality rights and also harms their children. Canada ratified this document on October 18, 2002, and is legally obligated to uphold it. Because of this, Winston and his lawless polygamous cronies are presently under investigation by our RCMP and we expect arrests for the sexual exploitation of young girls. We do not want harems and concubines in Canada, thank you. By the way, where is your Maths? If every man decides he's going to have, say, 4 women, some of you guys aren't going to get any women at all. Maybe you'll be forced to turn to other men. Fine if you're homosexual, but pretty lonely and dreary, not to mention frustrating, if you're not. Polgyamy upsets the balance of nature. It's an ancient practice from the dark ages. Lets dump it on the garbage heap, where it belongs.
Anonymous (November 15, 2005 @ 11:40am):
I sure wish my sister and my father could get married so he could be covered under her health insurance. It would save the family a lot of money.
Anonymous (November 15, 2005 @ 12:15pm):
This is lame. Waste of my time.
Anonymous (November 15, 2005 @ 1:35pm):
"The most common talking point among those opposed to homosexual marriage is that if we allow gays to marry there's nothing to stop us from allowing polygamy."
That is not a well-grounded point. I don't really see the link between allowing gays to marry and polygamy. They're two separate things, allowing someone to marry a member of the same sex, and allowing someone to marry more than one person. One can make the argument that gays are not monogamous, but preventing those who want to be monogamous from being married is not a real solution. There are lots of gay people who want to marry the person they've remained monogamous with for years. Denying them that right doesn't have anything to do with polygamy.
Both of you have focused on polygamy without spending any time discrediting that link. Even if we were to try and make the argument that polygamy could be acceptable, it would affect support for gay marriage.
Anonymous (November 15, 2005 @ 1:45pm):
If marriage is a religious term, perhaps it should be removed for governmental purposes? If the debate is 'sanctity of marriage', then it is a defacto violation of the separation of church and state. Don't believe me? Look up the word 'sanctity'.
Anonymous (November 15, 2005 @ 3:43pm):
"I sure wish my sister and my father could get married so he could be covered under her health insurance. It would save the family a lot of money."
How come the homophobes always make arguments like this when they attack gay marriage? Their only argument is that health insurance will suffer? Do you HONESTLY think that two straight men will get married only for the lower insurance premiums? And if you do believe so, what exactly makes them more likely to do so than a two friends of the opposite sex? If I have a good female friend and she has some kick ass insurance what is going to stop me from jumping aboard her meal ticket?
Anonymous (November 16, 2005 @ 12:14am):
Brian Stanfill
brianstanfill@hotmail.com
<a href="http://pershot.com">pershot.com</a>
RE: Jancis Andrews
Polygamy neither upsets nor assists the balance of nature more or less than any other type of arbitrary union. Unions must be treated more as contractual agreements to equitably share assets and liabilities than as permission slips to bear offspring. And since everything that exists is inexplicably a part of nature, any such arrangement cannot be unnatural.
Just as Robert Hunger wrote in his editorial, "morality is a highly relativistic idea". Any attempt to quantify and solidify morality will only be met with resistance.
Understanding the subjectivity behind morality is the first step in reaching an objective point of view. Try it.
Anonymous (November 16, 2005 @ 12:18am):
Brian Stanfill
brianstanfill@hotmail.com
<a href="http://pershot.com">pershot.com</a>
RE: Anonymous "If marriage is a religious term, perhaps it should be removed for governmental purposes? If the debate is 'sanctity of marriage', then it is a defacto violation of the separation of church and state. Don't believe me? Look up the word 'sanctity'."
Three cheers. I should like to see a lawsuit in Federal Court. Possibly we should suggest this to the ACLU. Hmmm.
